The one move that Paul was guilty of that had a huge impact on John from what i read is the time he bought more of the Northern song stock behind John's back. When John found out about it, he really went off on Paul. I never understood why that mean so much to John but apparently this meant a lot since Yoko said many years later that John was hurt by Paul more than any other person in the world or something like that. I don't know Lennon went off on that since he had insecure things on his agenda by then anyway. But, John felt betrayed by this and later said "Paul tried to ruin my songs subsconsciously"....It's unreal how nasty things got between the two. While i think John is largely to blame, Paul always make it seem like he was an innocent victim and i don't think that was true.

The northern songs stock buy-back was from the book "Apple to the Corp". I think it was corraborated in the Playboy interview with Lennon.

After Linda's memorial service and the snubbing of Yoko, Paul said in many press reports that one of the reasons he snubbed Yoko was that she told the press ..."Paul did more to hurt John than any person in the world"..

John was quoted in Lennon remembers with Jann Wenner or with David Sheff in the Playboy interview that "Paul would subconsciously ruin his songs"

Like many of us, i sort of grew up and learn to read while reading the stacks and stacks of books and interviews on the Beatles, probably the most publiciized band of all-time. So, i'm fairly certain what i wrote is backed - up by the books and many other sources. Somebody like Mike who runs this site is probably a lot more knowledgeable than me on this stuff but i'm pretty sure i got those quotes right.

I don't know if that's a truth or a lie Chris, but as I EVER say: NOBODY(even the genius Macca) in the Earth IS a saint or a devil, we're all sinners and who can throw the first stone?? We're just a human being full of faulties(and virtues too, why not??)... Am I wrong??

I remember reading something about the record deal, that Capitol gave Paul a larger percentage of royalties so to keep Paul's solo catalog. Something like that anyway. Paul probably OK'd the strategy but the lawyers negotiated that one. I called it good management. John on the other hand, well.

Excellent point, Nito. Chris, it seems like all you do lately is come here to criticize Paul. I don't think it's a big deal to criticize certain aspects of the music here and there or whatever, but it seems criticizing him is ALL you do.

I think i was trying to state why John had so much anger toward Paul. Why the business deal drove him to really have some nastiness toward him? Meaning Paul.

I don't think Paul deserved the anger. But, i don't think he is an innocent victim.

I have been a bit down on Paul , i suppose. I shouldn't be that. My issues with him remain his attempt to re-write the past. I still can't get over the Vanity Fair article and the Danny Fields book. Wow! Of course, i should try to be a little more positive since he is the only the greatest song-writer of all time[^][;)]